These COVID Statistics Are Mind Blowing

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Given your earlier confusion around averages I have my doubts about your understanding of mathematics and statistics.

You also do not need to keep posting the same link. I want even disputing your global figure (although other studies do put it higher)

You keep accusing others of trying to mislead when the reality is that only looking at global IFR is highly misjeading as was much higher for high income countries.

The majority of people on this site live in countries with a much higher IFR than .15%

The confusion exists only in your arguments.
My arguments are crystal clear and I have linked the paper several times as repetition is vital for understanding the material.

I don't think it's my fault that your arguments are confused and as result you believe and claim others are confused when in reality the confusion comes from your part.

Once again the proper comparison should be made with other disease

Spanish Flu had an IFR of 10%
COVID-19 had an IFR of 0.15%

There is nothing misleading about stating the global infection fatality rate known as IFR.


In terms of the US a recent analysis by John Hopkins has put the CFR at 1.1%. The IFR in this case is much lower. It doesn't justify any measures and it didn't justify any measures.

coronavirus.jhu.edu...

Given you want to teach us maths I wanted to know where did you study? I am slightly confused whether this is maths or biology or both?

I am certainly confused as to why you continually try and turn threads into a discussion about me.

I aso dont have the time, inclination nor crayons to start at the level of remedial maths your posts suggest you need.

You have argued for pages against my post which was that the US had a higher IFR. It's really that simple.

I have made no mention of Spanish flu in this thread I have merely pointed out that claiming measures were an over reaction based on .15% IFR is misleading as that is not the IFR for where the vast majority of posters live.

I haven't argued about the US at all. You have brought up the conversation in an attempt to present COVID-19 as something different. I have only used Dr Ioannidis paper and nothing else apart from a few sources lately.

Nothing is misleading from my part. I have stated what the paper says which is 0.15% IFR and haven't done any mental gymnastics.

So I get it's best to end the conversation.

a reply to: chr0naut

So is there anywhere in the world that sars-cov-2 virus was not found?

If there is not, the assumption would have to be every human came in contact with it over the last 2 to 3 years.

Whether or not a person showed any symptoms or has any antibodies.

Unless of course the virus was not as infectious as the experts told us.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

IFR much higher than .15 in the US and other high income nations.

www.thelancet.com...(21)02867-1/fulltext

We have discussed many times before that IFR is measured at a global level regardless of the difference of local IFRs. So there isn't any point in your comment or your attempt to present this as something that is not.

Here is the IFR as measured at a global level

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

And it is 0.15%

No, the IFR is a 'rubbery' figure that no-one agrees on, so the hope was that by accumulating all the different IFR figures, that there will be a median value that may be close to the truth.

That may be true if you include all IFR figures, from all credible sources, but not if you cherry-pick the IFR figures, as this paper has done.

The paper I have linked by Dr Ioannidis from Stanford is one of the most cited papers in the world. And his work has been published everywhere including the WHO.

Do you claim that this paper
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

has cheery-picked data? Are you serious?

You claim that nobody agrees on the IFR?
You should visit then website of the WHO to see Dr Ioannidis publications on the subject.

No you are wrong. The IFR isn't estimated using medians. It's the ratio of the total number of deaths to the total estimated number of infections

But no-one knows the total number of unreported infections. So the estimate could be anything between the known measured and reported infections, right up to the total population. Which invalidates the IFR for the purpose you are using it.

No as the estimates have been made using statistical surveillance and seroprevalence data. That's how you get to estimate the total infections. Nothing invalidates the IFR. It only happens in your opinion and nowhere else.

Seroprevalence data is drawn from blood-tests. I would wonder how accurate that would be for a respiratory illness, though?

And how comprehensive are blood tests as a measure of total population? Like, how many times have you given blood in the last month or so? And surely those who are sick aren't also giving blood at the same time?

And again, in your words, it is an estimate. Not hard fact. Not measurement.

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: chr0naut

So is there anywhere in the world that sars-cov-2 virus was not found?

If there is not, the assumption would have to be every human came in contact with it over the last 2 to 3 years.

Whether or not a person showed any symptoms or has any antibodies.

Unless of course the virus was not as infectious as the experts told us.

Using the infectiousness of the alpha strain, I calculated that it wouldn't be until 2024-2025 that everyone in the US has been exposed to SARS-CoV-2. My calculations, of course, didn't take into consideration newer more infectious strains or numerous natural inhibitors of spread. They were fairly basic.

Assumptions that everyone in the world has had COVID-19, and it being unreported, is probably not likely.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

IFR much higher than .15 in the US and other high income nations.

www.thelancet.com...(21)02867-1/fulltext

We have discussed many times before that IFR is measured at a global level regardless of the difference of local IFRs. So there isn't any point in your comment or your attempt to present this as something that is not.

Here is the IFR as measured at a global level

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

And it is 0.15%

No, the IFR is a 'rubbery' figure that no-one agrees on, so the hope was that by accumulating all the different IFR figures, that there will be a median value that may be close to the truth.

That may be true if you include all IFR figures, from all credible sources, but not if you cherry-pick the IFR figures, as this paper has done.

The paper I have linked by Dr Ioannidis from Stanford is one of the most cited papers in the world. And his work has been published everywhere including the WHO.

Do you claim that this paper
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

has cheery-picked data? Are you serious?

You claim that nobody agrees on the IFR?
You should visit then website of the WHO to see Dr Ioannidis publications on the subject.

No you are wrong. The IFR isn't estimated using medians. It's the ratio of the total number of deaths to the total estimated number of infections

But no-one knows the total number of unreported infections. So the estimate could be anything between the known measured and reported infections, right up to the total population. Which invalidates the IFR for the purpose you are using it.

No as the estimates have been made using statistical surveillance and seroprevalence data. That's how you get to estimate the total infections. Nothing invalidates the IFR. It only happens in your opinion and nowhere else.

Seroprevalence data is drawn from blood-tests. I would wonder how accurate that would be for a respiratory illness, though?

And how comprehensive are blood tests as a measure of total population? Like, how many times have you given blood in the last month or so? And surely those who are sick aren't also giving blood at the same time?

And again, in your words, it is an estimate. Not hard fact. Not measurement.

I am sure you can take your questions to the World Health Organisation, the National Institutes of Health and all major journals that have published this research which is considered top quality. Dr Ioannidis and his research is one of the most cited in the world. And you understand why. His research is top class.

The IFR is always an estimate. This isn't my claim is basic knowledge. But how good this estimate is depends on the scientists and the methods they use. And we have really good ones at Stanford.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

CFR, IFR, however one wishes to measure this mess, none of the measures taken were commensurate with the deaths.

0.0003% - 0-19yrs
0.003% - 20-29yrs
0.011% - 30-39yrs
0.035% - 40-49yrs
0.129% - 50-59yrs
0.501% - 60-69yrs

Especially considering that they intentionally infected vulnerable old people in LTCFs early on to make a big "death splash." It also appears that many, many deaths that were anything but covid were counted as covid deaths. I suppose it was a good strategy if they wanted to scare everyone into cowering in their houses, and taking the golden goose vaxxine when it was released.

originally posted by: MaxxAction
a reply to: Asmodeus3

CFR, IFR, however one wishes to measure this mess, none of the measures taken were commensurate with the deaths.

0.0003% - 0-19yrs
0.003% - 20-29yrs
0.011% - 30-39yrs
0.035% - 40-49yrs
0.129% - 50-59yrs
0.501% - 60-69yrs

Especially considering that they intentionally infected vulnerable old people in LTCFs early on to make a big "death splash." It also appears that many, many deaths that were anything but covid were counted as covid deaths. I suppose it was a good strategy if they wanted to scare everyone into cowering in their houses, and taking the golden goose vaxxine when it was released.

Yes I have seen them.

All refer to IFR in different age groups.
Not only the IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15% which makes the disease a mild condition for most of us but it proves what we knew from the beginning i.e that young and healthy people should have never been subjects to the absurd and ludicrous lockdowns or subjects to experimental, untested, and potentially dangerous products that have been branded as safe and effective vaccines.

Take the 0-19 age group

IFR=0.0003%

Implies that for every 1 million infections you have 3 deaths.

The schools were forced to close under the false pretext that this is something like the Spanish Flu and everyone is at risk. The number prove otherwise and the closure of schools and universities should be regarded as a serious crime that should be dealt properly in the courts. The lockdowns of healthy children and their imprisonment should be dealt in a Nuremberg style trial.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

What effect did it have on your children?

I know its not a broad range but we could compare the effect it had on yours and my children and others could comment as well if they wanted to.

a reply to: nonspecific

The kids that live under my roof weren't affected at all. They are homeschooled, so no bigge. Not to mention that we didn't buy into the scare hype, so they weren't constantly bombarded with fear porn.

My 25 year old son had his college derailed by it. He is going to go back next year, or so he says, to finish up. But college via online, no access to labs, or professors for individual instruction was bad for him.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

A huge gallows festooned with American, Gadsen, and Betsy Ross flags and other pro freedom paraphernalia should be erected by the Washington monument, and all these psychos should be hanged by their necks, and it should be broadcast on every station, network, and outlet worldwide.

originally posted by: MaxxAction
a reply to: Asmodeus3

A huge gallows festooned with American, Gadsen, and Betsy Ross flags and other pro freedom paraphernalia should be erected by the Washington monument, and all these psychos should be hanged by their necks, and it should be broadcast on every station, network, and outlet worldwide.

THIS. So that this # NEVER EVER HAPPENS AGAIN

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

What effect did it have on your children?

I know its not a broad range but we could compare the effect it had on yours and my children and others could comment as well if they wanted to.

Or perhaps we can use common sense and logic to see what happens if we lockdown healthy populations and deprive children from school and all other activities. I am astonished you have asked me this question!

But first of all nobody has proved that the lockdowns were justified in the first place.

0-19 age groups

IFR=0.0003%

I.e expecting 3 death in one million infections.

Since you are from the UK I have prepared a thread that debunks the lockdowns from the beginning of this story as the numbers we discuss here were known back then.

But do you really think that the lockdowns were justified??

originally posted by: PurpleFox

originally posted by: MaxxAction
a reply to: Asmodeus3

A huge gallows festooned with American, Gadsen, and Betsy Ross flags and other pro freedom paraphernalia should be erected by the Washington monument, and all these psychos should be hanged by their necks, and it should be broadcast on every station, network, and outlet worldwide.

THIS. So that this # NEVER EVER HAPPENS AGAIN

We seem to go through this sociopaths attempt to take over the world thing every 100 years. Even if it's stopped now its gonna happen again probably.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

avoiding answering then?

If you are not from the UK do you really have enough insight to make a thread debunking the UK lockdowns?

I'd have thought that would be far more appropriate from a member who actually lived in the UK during that time?

a reply to: chr0naut

Show the formula you use to take that long.
Are you only doubling the number infected every 75 days?

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

avoiding answering then?

If you are not from the UK do you really have enough insight to make a thread debunking the UK lockdowns?

I'd have thought that would be far more appropriate from a member who actually lived in the UK during that time?

But you can see the statistics in this thread instead of ignoring them. And you can search online to find very good articles and statistics from the ONS.
But look at the stats in this thread.

3 deaths per million for the 0-19 age group.

Your question is irrelevant by the way. How me and you feel or someone's kids.

By the way the lockdowns have already been debunked if you have had a look at statistics anywhere or the infection fatality rate discussed earlier. No sane person supports long term lockdowns.

originally posted by: chr0naut


Assumptions that everyone in the world has had COVID-19, and it being unreported, is probably not likely.

Which Rocks have these communities been hiding under?

Do you have any proof that there are large communities without any SARS-COV-2 infections?

But I suppose if you are saying the pandemic declaration was a lie and there was not a highly infectious viral floating around requiring isolation and face mask to prevent spread to anyone within 6ft of someone infected.
Then perhaps there could be a high percentage of the population who never got anywhere near the viral particle.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

More avoidance of the questions I asked?

And I am still interested in the thread you are putting out that debunks the lockdowns in the UK.

As I say given that you have said you are from the US I believe?

a reply to: nonspecific

I haven't avoided any question but it's insignificant to testify how we feel and our experiences. Unless you support that lockdowns were beneficial.

Lockdowns have been debunked long time ago.
As a starter take a look at the statistics in the OP

3 deaths per million for the 0-19 age group.
Does it justify closing down schools?

Apply common sense.

Don't need to put the article by the way but I wil do.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

More avoidance of the questions I asked?

And I am still interested in the thread you are putting out that debunks the lockdowns in the UK.

As I say given that you have said you are from the US I believe?

Have you had a look at the statistics?
Because you have supported vaccines and apologising for their side effects, then you supported Pfizer and now lockdowns. So are you a lockdown advocate and denying the statistics and reality?